Energy Consumption and Environmental Impact of E-Grocery: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Papers Per Year, Country, and Channel
3.2. Influencing Factors Per Paper
3.3. Emissions and Energy Consumption
3.4. Gaps Analysis and Future Research Agenda
- a.
- Gaps analysis
- b.
- Future research agenda
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tomoya Kawasaki, H.W.R.S. The use of e-commerce and the COVID-19 outbreak: A panel data analysis in Japan. Transp. Policy 2022, 115, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honey-Rosés, J.; Anguelovski, I.; Chireh, V.K.; Daher, C.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.; Litt, J.S.; Mawani, V.; McCall, M.K.; Orellana, A.; Oscilowicz, E.; et al. The impact of COVID-19 on public space: An early review of the emerging questions—Design, perceptions and inequities. Cities Health 2020, 5, S263–S279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migliaccio, M.; Buono, A.; Maltese, I.; Migliaccio, M. The 2020 Italian Spring Lockdown: A Multidisciplinary Analysis over the Milan Urban Area. World 2021, 2, 391–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamshiripour, A.; Rahimi, E.; Shabanpour, R.; Mohammadian, A. (Kouros) How is COVID-19 reshaping activity-travel behavior? Evidence from a comprehensive survey in Chicago. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grashuis, J.; Skevas, T.; Segovia, M.S. Grocery shopping preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhaduri, E.; Manoj, B.S.; Wadud, Z.; Goswami, A.K.; Choudhury, C.F. Modelling the effects of COVID-19 on travel mode choice behaviour in India. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 8, 100273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friesen, C.A. Shopping for Food During COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2020, 52, 1082–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaimo, L.S.; Fiore, M.; Galati, A. How the COVID-19 pandemic is changing online food shopping human behaviour in Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, S.; Liu, L. Does covid-19 affect the behavior of buying fresh food? Evidence from Wuhan, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agnihotri, A. Can Brick-and-Mortar Retailers Successfully Become Multichannel Retailers? J. Mark. Channels 2015, 22, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piroth, P.; Rüger-Muck, E.; Bruwer, J. Digitalisation in grocery retailing in Germany: An exploratory study. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2020, 30, 479–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajdas, M.; Radomska, J.; Silva, S.C. The omni-channel approach: A utopia for companies? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 65, 102131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handayani, P.W.; Nurahmawati, R.A.; Pinem, A.A.; Azzahro, F. Switching Intention from Traditional to Online Groceries Using the Moderating Effect of Gender in Indonesia. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habib, S.; Hamadneh, N.N. Impact of perceived risk on consumers technology acceptance in online grocery adoption amid covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haridasan, A.C.; Fernando, A.G. Online or in-store: Unravelling consumer’s channel choice motives. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, D.A.; Peschel, A.O. Sweetening the Deal: The Ingredients that Drive Consumer Adoption of Online Grocery Shopping. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervellon, M.C.; Sylvie, J.; Ngobo, P.V. Shopping orientations as antecedents to channel choice in the French grocery multichannel landscape. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 27, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.A.; Chang, C.W. Development of a Partial Shipping Fees Pricing Model to Influence Consumers’ Purchase Intention under the COVID-19 Pandemic. Energies 2022, 15, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowlan, A.; Fine, J.; O’connor, T.; Burget, S. Pollution accounting for corporate actions: Quantifying the air emissions and impacts of transportation system choices case study: Food freight and the grocery industry in los angeles. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Bråthen, S. E-groceries, digitalization and sustainability. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 101097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sernicola, F.; Maltese, I.; Gatta, V.; Iannaccone, G.; Marcucci, E. Impatto del lockdown sulla spesa degli italiani: Quale futuro per l’e-grocery? Riv. Sci. della Soc. Ital. di Econ. Dei Trasp. E della Logist. 2020, 3, 1–13. Available online: https://www.openstarts.units.it/handle/10077/32169 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Bjørgen, A.; Bjerkan, K.Y.; Hjelkrem, O.A. E-groceries: Sustainable last mile distribution in city planning. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørgen, A.; Ryghaug, M. Integration of urban freight transport in city planning: Lesson learned. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 107, 103310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltese, I.; Mariotti, I.; Boscacci, F. Smart City, Urban Performance and Energy. In Smart Energy in the Smart City Urban Planning for a Sustainable Future; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 25–42. ISBN 978-3-319-31157-9. [Google Scholar]
- Patella, S.M.; Grazieschi, G.; Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Carrese, S. The adoption of green vehicles in last mile logistics: A systematic review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltese, I.; Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E. Active Travel in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. An Italian overview. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 40, 100621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, F.; Cardenas, I.; Sörensen, K.; Dewulf, W. Simulation of B2C e-commerce distribution in Antwerp using cargo bikes and delivery points. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Nigro, M.; Patella, S.M.; Serafini, S. Public transport-based crowdshipping for sustainable city logistics: Assessing economic and environmental impacts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milewski, D.; Milewska, B. The energy efficiency of the last mile in the E-commerce distribution in the context the COVID-19 pandemic. Energies 2021, 14, 7836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pani, A.; Mishra, S.; Golias, M.; Figliozzi, M. Evaluating Public Acceptance of Autonomous Delivery Robots During COVID-19 Pandemic. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 89, 102600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kochańska, E.; Łukasik, R.M.; Dzikuć, M. New circular challenges in the development of take-away food packaging in the covid-19 period. Energies 2021, 14, 4705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldev Sandhu, E.A.; Hanus, G. A Systematic Review on Consumer’s Behaviour for Online Grocery Shopping. Irjet 2016, 8, 639–644. [Google Scholar]
- Annadate, P.; Mude, G. Online Grocery Industry in India: Identifying Key Themes and Future Directions through a Literature Review. IIM Kozhikode 2020, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Prabowo, H. Online Grocery Shopping Adoption: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech), Bandung, Indonesia, 13–14 August 2020; pp. 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Hänninen, M.; Kwan, S.K.; Mitronen, L. From the store to omnichannel retail: Looking back over three decades of research. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2021, 31, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagorio, A.; Pinto, R. Food and grocery retail logistics issues: A systematic literature review. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín, J.C.; Pagliara, F.; Román, C. The research topics on e-grocery: Trends and existing gaps. Sustainability 2019, 11, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.; Mengersen, K.; Bennett, S.; Mazerolle, L. Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus 2014, 3, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeng, Y.; Jia, F.; Wan, L.; Guo, H. E-commerce in agri-food sector: A systematic literature review. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 439–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostolopoulos, N.; Ratten, V.; Petropoulos, D.; Liargovas, P.; Anastasopoulou, E. Agri-food sector and entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 crisis: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Strateg. Chang. 2021, 30, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barth, H.; Ulvenblad, P.O.; Ulvenblad, P. Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Michel-Villarreal, R.; Hingley, M.; Canavari, M.; Bregoli, I. Sustainability in Alternative Food Networks: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shroff, A.; Shah, B.J.; Gajjar, H. Online food delivery research: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 2852–2883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okoli, C. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37, 879–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering; EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, 2007. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Bandara, W.; Furtmueller, E.; Gorbacheva, E.; Miskon, S.; Beekhuyzen, J. Achieving rigor in literature reviews: Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37, 154–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campo, K.; Breugelmans, E. Buying Groceries in Brick and Click Stores: Category Allocation Decisions and the Moderating Effect of Online Buying Experience. J. Interact. Mark. 2015, 31, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roger, S. Global E-Commerce Grocery Market Has Grown 15% to 48bn. Kantar World Panel. 2016. Available online: https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/Global-e-commerce-grocery-market-has-grown-15-to-48bn (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Seitz, C.; Pokrivčák, J.; Tóth, M.; Plevný, M. Online grocery retailing in Germany: An explorative analysis. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2017, 18, 1243–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Climate Policy. National Climate Policy. 2017. Available online: https://www.bmuv.de/en/topics/climate-adaptation/climate-protection/national-climate-policy#:~:text=Germany has set itself ambitious targets for reducing emissions%2C for,to 95 percent by 2050 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Climate and Energy. Climate and Energy. 2022. Available online: https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/climate-and-energy (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Wygonik, E.; Goodchild, A. Evaluating the Efficacy of Shared-use Vehicles for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A U.S. Case Study of Grocery Delivery. J. Transp. Res. Forum 2012, 51, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daniels, J. Online Grocery Sales Set to Surge, Grabbing 20 Percent of Market by 2025. 2017. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/online-grocery-sales-set-surge-grabbing-20-percent-of-market-by-2025.html (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Panzone, L.A.; Ulph, A.; Hilton, D.; Gortemaker, I.; Tajudeen, I.A. Sustainable by Design: Choice Architecture and the Carbon Footprint of Grocery Shopping. J. Public Policy Mark. 2021, 40, 463–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leyerer, M.; Sonneberg, M.O.; Heumann, M.; Breitner, M.H. Shortening the last mile in urban areas: Optimizing a smart logistics concept for e-grocery operations. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 585–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardi, L.; Wagner, U. Grocery delivery or customer pickup-influences on energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Munich. Sustainability 2019, 11, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Schneider, N. Evaluating the carbon emissions of alternative food provision systems: A comparative analysis of recipe box and supermarket equivalents. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 173, 121099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gee, I.M.; Davidson, F.T.; Speetles, B.L.; Webber, M.E. Deliver Me from food waste: Model framework for comparing the energy use of meal-kit delivery and groceries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brand, C.; Schwanen, T.; Anable, J. ‘ Online Omnivores ’ or ‘ Willing but struggling ’ ? Identifying online grocery shopping behavior segments using attitude theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blitstein, J.L.; Frentz, F.; Jilcott Pitts, S.B. A Mixed-method Examination of Reported Benefits of Online Grocery Shopping in the United States and Germany: Is Health a Factor? J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Maltese, I.; Iannaccone, G.; Fan, J. E-groceries: A channel choice analysis in shanghai. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Magalhães, D.J.A.V. Analysis of critical factors affecting the final decision-making for online grocery shopping. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 101088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltese, I.; Le Pira, M.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Evangelinos, C. Grocery or @grocery: A stated preference investigation in Rome and Milan. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, J.; Arce-Urriza, M.; Cebollada-Calvo, J.J.; Chintagunta, P.K. An Empirical Analysis of Shopping Behavior Across Online and Offline Channels for Grocery Products: The Moderating Effects of Household and Product Characteristics. J. Interact. Mark. 2010, 24, 251–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campo, K.; Lamey, L.; Breugelmans, E.; Melis, K. Going Online for Groceries: Drivers of Category-Level Share of Wallet Expansion. J. Retail. 2020, 97, 154–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chintagunta, P.K.; Chu, J.; Cebollada, J. Quantifying transaction costs in online/off-line grocery channel choice. Mark. Sci. 2012, 31, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heldt, B.; Matteis, T.; von Schmidt, A.; Heinrichs, M. Cool but dirty food?—Estimating the impact of grocery home delivery on transport and CO2 emissions including cooling. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figliozzi, M.A. Carbon emissions reductions in last mile and grocery deliveries utilizing air and ground autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 85, 102443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siragusa, C.; Tumino, A. E-grocery: Comparing the environmental impacts of the online and offline purchasing processes. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 25, 1164–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belavina, E.; Girotra, K.; Kabra, A. Online grocery retail: Revenue models and environmental impact. Manag. Sci. 2017, 63, 1781–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Motte-Baumvol, B.; Chevallier, L.B.; Bonin, O. Does e-grocery shopping reduce CO2 emissions for working couples’ travel in England? Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Le Pira, M.; Chao, T.; Li, S. Bricks or clicks? Consumer channel choice and its transport and environmental implications for the grocery market in Norway. Cities 2021, 110, 103046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, S.; Gatta, V.; Marcucci, E.; Benmoussa, R.; Irhirane, E.H. E-grocery behavioural analysis for Sustainable Urban Logistics in Morocco. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2022, XLIX, 9–32. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, M.; McKenzie, J.E.; Sowden, A.; Katikireddi, S.V.; Brennan, S.E.; Ellis, S.; Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Ryan, R.; Shepperd, S.; Thomas, J.; et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ 2020, 368, l6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKenzie, J.E.; Brennan, S.E. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and Presenting Findings Using Other Methods. Cochrane Handbook. 2022. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-12 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Mortimer, G.; Mortimer, G.; Fazal, S.; Andrews, L.; Martin, J.; Mortimer, G.; Fazal, S.; Andrews, L.; Martin, J. Online grocery shopping: The impact of shopping frequency on perceived risk. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2016, 26, 202–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Authors | Article Title | Actual Size of Demand/Fluctuation of Demand | Additional vs. Substitution Demand | Typology of Products | Shopping Frequency | Other Influencing Factors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[56] | Sustainable by Design: Choice Architecture and the Carbon Footprint of Grocery Shopping | Demand not taken into account/No sensitivity analysis conducted | No comparison of online and offline | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Moral goal priming/Bonus-malus carbon tax |
[60] | Deliver Me from food waste: Model framework for comparing the energy use of meal-kit delivery and groceries | Actual size of demand/No sensitivity analysis conducted | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Packaging |
[59] | Evaluating the carbon emissions of alternative food provision systems: A comparative analysis of recipe box and supermarket equivalents | Demand not taken into account/sensitivity analysis conducted regarding different values of food loss/waste for each ingredient and relevant packaging materials | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Cooking and packaging related emissions |
[58] | Grocery Delivery or Customer Pickup-Influences on Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Munich | Study based on fluctuation of demand | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Combustion engine vs. electric vehicles |
[69] | Cool but dirty food?—Estimating the impact of grocery home delivery on transport and CO2 emissions including cooling | Study based on fluctuation of demand | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Partially taken into consideration | Cooling while delivering groceries/Different air temperature |
[70] | Carbon emissions reductions in last mile and grocery deliveries utilizing air and ground autonomous vehicles | Calculations based on approximation/Sensitivity analysis conducted regarding other factors | No specification | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Delivery service area, Service area to depot distance, Time to deliver, Nb customers, Customer travelled distance |
[71] | E-grocery: comparing the environmental impacts of the online and offline purchasing processes | Actual size of demand taken into account/Sensitivity analysis conducted regarding travelled distances and basket size | No specification | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | All phases: replenishment, pre-sale and sale, picking/assembly, delivery and post-sale. |
[57] | Shortening the Last Mile in Urban Areas: Optimizing a Smart Logistics Concept for E-Grocery Operations | Actual size of demand taken into account/Sensitivity analysis conducted | Substitution demand | Three product types (frozen, refrigerated, and dry products) discussed | Not taken into consideration | Delivery by electric cargo bicycles (ECBs); Grocery lockers locations |
[72] | Online Grocery Retail: Revenue Models and Environmental Impact | Actual size of demand taken into account/Sensitivity analysis regarding demand vs. CO2 emissions was conducted | Partial substitution | Perishable products discussed | Taken into consideration | Subscription delivery model vs. per order one revenue model |
[73] | Does e-grocery shopping reduce CO2 emissions for working couples’ travel in England? | Actual size of demand taken into account/No sensitivity analysis conducted | Substitution demand | Perishable products discussed | Taken into consideration | Gender |
[74] | Bricks or clicks? Consumer channel choice and its transport and environmental implications for the grocery market in Norway | Actual size of demand taken into account/Sensitivity analysis conducted | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Product price, Service cost, Product range, Time window, Lead time, Travel time |
[75] | E-grocery behavioural analysis for Sustainable Urban Logistics in Morocco | Actual size of demand taken into account/Sensitivity analysis conducted | Substitution demand | Not taken into consideration | Not taken into consideration | Product price, Service cost, Product range, Time window, Lead time, Travel time |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Aziz, S.; Maltese, I.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Benmoussa, R.; Irhirane, E.H. Energy Consumption and Environmental Impact of E-Grocery: A Systematic Literature Review. Energies 2022, 15, 7289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197289
Aziz S, Maltese I, Marcucci E, Gatta V, Benmoussa R, Irhirane EH. Energy Consumption and Environmental Impact of E-Grocery: A Systematic Literature Review. Energies. 2022; 15(19):7289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197289
Chicago/Turabian StyleAziz, Soukaina, Ila Maltese, Edoardo Marcucci, Valerio Gatta, Rachid Benmoussa, and El Hassan Irhirane. 2022. "Energy Consumption and Environmental Impact of E-Grocery: A Systematic Literature Review" Energies 15, no. 19: 7289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197289
APA StyleAziz, S., Maltese, I., Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Benmoussa, R., & Irhirane, E. H. (2022). Energy Consumption and Environmental Impact of E-Grocery: A Systematic Literature Review. Energies, 15(19), 7289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197289